O’Rly? Ordonez: New Atheism is Anti-family

 

Yo Red! How about having this as the official Filipino Freethinker uniform?

 

A couple of months ago, I wrote a rebuttal article to Minyong Ordoñez, a certain fellow who wrote a comment to the Philippine Daily Inquirer likening the Reproductive Health Bill to throwing babies into trash bins.

Now while you’re still wrapping your head around how one eventually leads to the other (it doesn’t), Ordonez has written another post for the PDI and Manila Times.

This latest post discussed the recent speech of Archbishop Socrates Villegas regarding the need for universities to produce saints and his admonition that Catholics today revere angels before priests.

But while the main body of Ordonez’s commentary alone makes for a target-rich environment, it’s this particular rocket that grabbed my attention:

Ordonez’s portrayal of New Atheism, as he sources the Eternal Word Television Network:

In a recent telecast of EWTN, a concept called “The New Atheism” was discussed as the prevalent lifestyle among the student population in American universities. New atheism is not a vociferous and fiery activism like the isms of the rowdy 1960s and 1970s. Instead it is an accepted fact, a quiet mindset that one is free to do anything or live a life free from moral constraint, as long as one is comfortable with his opinion and respectful of others.

Like most deviations from norms and values which are religion inspired, new atheism devalues and promotes the eventual collapse of the family. When families break up, social diseases spread widely across the urban landscape: teen suicide, teen prostitution, drug addiction, alcoholism, melancholia, kleptomania, vagrancy, and street crimes. Deterioration of civil society shows in police blotters, city jails, psychiatric couches, morgues and cemeteries.

Where to begin? For starters, Mr. Ordonez, a quick definition of New Atheism.

New Atheism, at least according to my understanding (and copious amounts of Google searches), is the media brand for a recent string of high profile authors and bloggers that includes Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel C. Dennett, Victor J. Stenger, Christopher Hitchens, and PZ Myers.

The New Atheism movement is defined by its scientific approach to tackling the matter of religion, especially in Dawkins’ case—particularly, that God, like any other hypothesis, can be proven or disproven given sufficient study and research.

And if you happen to follow Myers on his Pharyngula blog, it’s also a very vocal and aggressive movement, actively calling out the various supernatural claims and doctrines that have long been held by the religious, moreso if they promote prejudice and needless discrimination against our fellow human being.

New Atheism is comprised of people who have had enough of the falsehood and harm that have been inflicted on people in the name of faith. They have decided to speak up, and directly confront the assertions made by religious organizations, using hard facts to prove them wrong.

Now that we’ve got a basic sense of New Atheism, we’ll move on to the main event:

In a recent telecast of EWTN, a concept called “The New Atheism” was discussed as the prevalent lifestyle among the student population in American universities. New atheism is not a vociferous and fiery activism like the isms of the rowdy 1960s and 1970s. Instead it is an accepted fact, a quiet mindset that one is free to do anything or live a life free from moral constraint, as long as one is comfortable with his opinion and respectful of others.

And here Ordonez gets New Atheism wrong right off the bat.

New Atheism is not about doing what one wants free of moral constraints. It is simply about being vocal about one’s lack of belief in a god. It is non sequitur to assume that since one does not have a deity to worship, one is suddenly devoid of all moral constraints.

“Atheism = No Morals” is a common fallacy consistently drawn up by apologists like Ordonez and his ilk.  This is based on their assumption that because atheists don’t believe in a god, the theist’s supreme source of morality, atheists are not moral.

I can’t speak for all atheists (I’m a Deist myself), but from what I have seen, the atheist community does have a multitude of personal reasons and motivations for having their own moral compasses. The more astute ones refer to secular humanism as their guide.  Secular humanism is an ideology that espouses reason, ethics, and the search for human fulfillment as its primary goals.  The Humanist Manifesto does a good job of summing up this mindset.

Atheists are not necessarily devoid of morals. Given their lack of belief in a god (or gods), the atheists I have met bear more culpability for their own actions, not relegating it to the tired scapegoat of “[Insert Deity’s Name Here] made me do it!

But to humor Ordonez, yes, atheists do not adhere to the Catholic faith—at least, his idea of what it means to be Catholic – idea of what is “moral”, and I think that’s a good thing, as we pursue Ordonez’s next statement:

Like most deviations from norms and values which are religion inspired, new atheism devalues and promotes the eventual collapse of the family.

And once again, I’m still wondering where Ordonez found his data to make this assertion (If you do find it, send us a copy).

If there is anything inherently “family breaking” about being an atheist, it’s having to live in a traditional religious family that still adheres to the sort of cooked up boogeymen that people like Ordonez fabricate.

The sort of communities that will not hesitate to ostracize family members not because they’re criminals, but simply for believing in one god less. It’s a dilemma that the atheist community shares with the LGBT community (whom we are close allies with btw).

What we can learn after peering closer into Ordonez’s assertion, however, is that most atheists on the net are against the idea of having to break up families, unless this really is the only way to mend hostilities between member with different beliefs. One classic example being Richard Wade over at the Friendly Atheist Blog.

Richard has a regular series called “Ask Richard,” where he answers letters regarding people whose non-belief have put them under extensive friction with their religious loved ones. Some of these letters are simply seeking advise on whether it’s worth it for atheist couples to send their kids to a religious school.

The more serious cases involve families whose ties have been broken because a sibling, spouse, child, or parent has expressed their atheism at one point.

While Richard encourages the letter’s writers to stay honest with their non-belief, he consistently and painstakingly advises them to avoid confrontation if possible, always encouraging them to resolve the matters diplomatically and tactfully so as not to disrupt the family’s bond, while at the same time advising them to look for support from fellow atheists within their area.

If there is anything anti-family in the “Ask Richard” segments, it’s in the form of uncompromising fathers, mothers, siblings, and spouses whose dogma pushes them to drive away a loved one just because of a difference in personal belief.

And speaking of anti-family, Ordonez would do well to look back at his own church. The RCC has been rife with controversy over the past few years, owing greatly to bigotry against LGBT community. Pope Ratzinger himself has been very vocal about his opposition to the LGBT community. Last January, Ratzinger declared that homosexuality was a threat to creation.

And two years ago, the RCC was also vocal in its support of Proposition 8, which would criminalize same-sex marriages in the region of California. Schadenfreude to them though, given Judge Vaughn Walker has recently deemed Prop 8 as unconstitutional.

And one didn’t have to be a homosexual to suffer their dogma either, as one unfortunate schoolgirl found as she was expelled from her school. The student’s crime? Her parents were lesbian. Sins of the father (or is it mothers) indeed.

If the church booting out hapless women from is institutions sounds like familiar territory for the Philippines, then it probably is, if you happen to have followed the passing of the Magna Carta for Women last year.

Among its tenets, the Magna Carta sought to remove discrimination against working women, namely using pregnancy as grounds for expulsion and job termination. It was a move that was opposed by the CBCP, which invoked its right to teach its own religious morals to its students.

Because as we all know, nothing teaches a woman the Catholic virtues of love and compassion better than kicking them out into the pavement, with no steady income or education, with a child on the way. And despite this, Ordonez insists that it’s New Atheism that’s responsible for breaking up families?

When families break up, social diseases spread widely across the urban landscape: teen suicide, teen prostitution, drug addiction, alcoholism, melancholia, kleptomania, vagrancy, and street crimes. Deterioration of civil society shows in police blotters, city jails, psychiatric couches, morgues and cemeteries.

And yet another claim that seems to be heavy on rhetoric, but sorely lacking in proof. Evidence to the contrary, on the other hand, is quite plentiful, and I won’t even have to explain them – you can read snippets from the news reports themselves:
______________________________________________
Teen Suicide and Melancholia

Two out of three Americans believe gay people commit suicide at least partly because of messages coming out of churches and other places of worship, a survey released Thursday found.

More than four out of 10 Americans say the message coming out of churches about gay people is negative, and about the same number say those messages contribute “a lot” to negative perceptions of gay and lesbian people.

Catholics were the most critical of their own churches’ messages on homosexuality, while white evangelical Christians gave their churches the highest grades, the survey found.

The Public Religion Research Institute asked 1,017 Americans their views on religion and homosexuality between October 14 and 17, in the wake of a highly publicized rash of suicides by gay people.

Gay rights campaigner Dan Savage said the idea that churches send out an anti-gay message “totally jibes with my experience and that of millions of other gay and lesbian people.”

______________________________________________

Teen Prostitution

THE Roman Catholic Church has secretly paid thousands of pounds in “hush money” to dozens of Britons who were sexually abused by priests.

The disclosure will come as a further embarrassment to the Catholic Church in England and Wales and to its spiritual leader, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, the Archbishop of Westminster, who has been accused of turning a blind eye to paedophile priests when he was Bishop of Arundel and Brighton.

One of them, Father Michael Hill, was jailed in 1997 for a string of sex offences and will be sentenced tomorrow after admitting further charges of indecent assault on three boys. Several of the compensation payments — which were made on condition that the victims did not talk about them — went to people abused by Hill and Cardinal Murphy- O’Connor is said to have been aware of them.

______________________________________________

Vagrancy and Street Crime

PORTLAND – A social service agency’s support for same-sex marriage has cost it local and national funding from the Catholic Church’s anti-poverty program.

Preble Street’s Homeless Voices for Justice program has lost $17,400 this year and will lose $33,000 that it expected for its next fiscal year.

Officials with the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland and the Washington-based Catholic Campaign for Human Development say that Preble Street violated its grant agreement by supporting Maine’s “No on 1” campaign last fall.

No on 1 opposed a ballot proposal to overturn the new state law legalizing gay marriage. Voters approved Question 1 on Nov. 3.

Homeless Voices for Justice, a statewide advocacy group, is led by people who have been homeless. It works on issues that affect the homeless, such as supporting affordable housing and preventing violence against the homeless.

Portland-based Preble Street, which runs a dozen programs to provide housing and other services for the poor and the homeless, provides staff support for Homeless Voices for Justice.

Catholics for Marriage Equality has begun an effort to replace the lost funding by raising $17,400 for Homeless Voices for Justice. Anne Underwood, a co-founder of the group that advocates for same-sex marriage, said Bishop Richard Malone is punishing the homeless because of politics.

______________________________________________

These are just among the many examples of the sort of damage the RCC has done in the name of trying to enforce its teachings.

To any Catholic who happens to be reading this: You are most probably honest, decent folks who truly believe in doing good for your fellow men, which makes me wonder how you can honestly stomach having to follow the directions and morals of a group that would willingly forsake a human being’s dignity and rights just to protect its status quo and reputation.

And with that, I’ll be leaving you guys to take the time to read through the links I’ve posted over this unexpectedly long piece. Red has convinced me to send a copy of this link to the PDI as a rebuttal letter to Ordonez, so just stay posted in case I have any updates.

Now I’m off to bag me some Deathclaws in the Mojave Wasteland…

69 comments

  1. four letters would be my answer: WWJD.

    Unless you can prove that it's the case, then I can dismiss this as a bunch of lunatics that happen to congregate in a church.

  2. [You're resorting to a strawman in oversimplifying the entire process. ]

    — Exactly. Which was the point.

    [Assuming Christianity's even the way to go, or if it is the true path to God. Pascal's Wager comes to mind.]

    — Uh, ok. Don't really know what your intention was on bringing that up, but fine.

  3. Getting back to your comparison with Jesus' sacrifice and evolution, there is one big difference – one is a claimed supernatural event, while the other is a scientific theory that has centuries worth of data backing it up to be credible.

    • [Getting back to your comparison with Jesus' sacrifice and evolution, there is one big difference – one is a claimed supernatural event, while the other is a scientific theory that has centuries worth of data backing it up to be credible.]

      –Yes. Sadly, we cannot have "centuries worth of data" for a supernatural event. Because that would be a contradiction.

      And I wasn't comparing them in the fashion that you seem to have done.

      While were on the topic, there is good historical evidence for the historicity of Jesus, so the theist is very much rational in his belief.

    • Oh and by the way. How's it going with your RHbill advocacy? Your buddy did say that morality seems to be an illusion. Doesn't that sound a bit off-putting? I mean, why argue that your illusion, with respect to the RHbill, is better than the Church's illusion? An illusion is an illusion, doesn't matter what type, right? Unless your arguin your illusion is somehow better?

      Nah, don't mind this rant. Just sharpening my steel.

      • Even if I were to subscribe to the notion that morality is an illusion, the way people act upon them is real enough, much in the same way we can argue about the existence of a god – that may be debatable, but how people will act upon their devotion is real enough…to kill even.

        The Church's "illusions" in this matter have prevented our country from gaining any real forms of comprehensive sex education for years, and it has cost our women dearly.

        Eleven women die every day according to WHO due to birth complications, most of which could have been avoided had these women had access to the proper services, or the education to ensure that they can have their children when they are fully prepared, both physically and emotionally.

        The Church's "Illusion" would have us teach them nothing about their survival, and resort to abstinence-only programs that have already been proven to be ineffective by several studies.

        Me – and everybody else supporting RH – would prefer that our women be given the chance to make their own choices over their body, regardless of religion.

        So please, debate the "illusion" of morals all you want Miguel. I may stillbe figuring out the rest of my morality, but at the moment I know enough that our women deserve better than what they're getting.

        • Hey, I was just messing with you on that. I was obviously being facetious. I have to say that I admire what your doing, in that you are sincere in your effort, however misguided you may be about the life at conception thing. But what your doing is admirable.

  4. ["Atheism = No Morals” is a common fallacy consistently drawn up by apologists like Ordonez and his ilk.]

    Yes that's a fallacy. But if atheism were true –one that is based on naturalism — then, morality would definitely be an illusion. A very helpful illusion you could say, but an illusion nonetheless.

    • Actually, one's atheism doesn't necessarily have any direct connection with one's morality. Most of the people I have met claim to have their own set of morals, with their non-belief in religion playing to an assorting number of degrees to it.

      So I can't agree with you that atheism = morals are an illusion. You're going to have to ask each individual on how exactly their atheism plays into their morality, and from that understanding, pick it apart.

      • [So I can't agree with you that atheism = morals are an illusion.]

        — Thankfully, most atheists, even the progenitors of new atheism (Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens et al.) Do not follow their worldview to it's logical conclusions. It seems that you don't as well –and that's really good. Because if you did, it is rather inescapable that morality becomes an illusion. And this is why Dawkins has implied, rather inconsistently with his worldview, that he does not subscribe to social darwinism.

        Consider if you will an ant that has suddenly become endowed with knowledge of socio-biological pressures. He feels the pressure, and the drive towards self-immolation for the sake of his colony. Suddenly the question if whether he should even follow through hits him like a ton of bricks; why should he kill himself for the sake of the colony? Why shouldn't he do everything he can to stop this drive towards self-immolation? Why shouldn't he think of his own survival?

        Morality is an illusion on a naturalistic worldview. The ant, much as anyone else who feels they ought to be altruistic, has been hoodwinked by natural selection. Altruism is not good, it's just evolutionarily advantageous and conduces to the propagation of genes. We can have many thought-experiments that would show that the goals of a naturalistic worldview (survival and replication) would lead to things that are at least intuitively immoral. So you have to assume, whether consciously or not, that reality is more than what naturalism can give.

        Morality is the game. Atheists and theists are both playing. Question is if the game is real or illusory. So it's not that atheists cannot be moral. It's that atheists, provided they follow their worldview to it's logical conclusion, have no reason to believe that the game isn't an illusion.

          • Yes I read them. And the article just proves my point.

            The author gave no foundation for morality other than claiming utility as it's ontology –which exactly shows morality as essentially an illusion created by natural selection to keep us propagating our genes.

            Is the author your friend? Tell him to read more.

          • There seems to be an assumption that only atheists have a problem with objective morality but I don't see that Theists have any better defined objective morality. From my experience within and without the Church it's incredibly subjective.

          • Yes, but there's a difference. If morality were a game, then while the theist believes the game is real, the rules ought to be followed, the atheist really ought to think that the game is a trick. (but still plays along? hmmm)

  5. This is my first time on this site and I just want to say that this is a great article. It's great to see that the voice of reason is alive here in the Philippines. Thank you! 😀

  6. "To any Catholic who happens to be reading this: You are most probably honest, decent folks who truly believe in doing good for your fellow men, which makes me wonder how you can honestly stomach having to follow the directions and morals of a group that would willingly forsake a human being’s dignity and rights just to protect its status quo and reputation." -twin-skies

    there is a good topic in that statement – human being's dignity. from what definition and understanding of human dignity you are basing your views?

        • Which is a creed that relies on a lot of nice words but lacks any solid foundation –if it is predicated on naturalism that is. I am familiar with modern humanism.

          I used to be an atheist. And I know many theists say that to give themselves more credibility. But I was an atheist only until recently. I've read them all. I've even studied a lot about other religions. Experimented with new-age notions and so forth. Christianity is the only one that is logically defensible. Ofcourse this last paragraph adds nothing to the discussion, but I think it's worth mentioning.

          • [Christianity is the only one that is logically defensible.]

            It's also become a very convenient defense for atrocities, as a quick look at current events will prove.

          • [It's also become a very convenient defense for atrocities, as a quick look at current events will prove.]

            — I don't think so. If you're referring to Islam, then I have no argument. But Christianity? Naw.

          • [I don't think so. If you're referring to Islam, then I have no argument. But Christianity? Naw. ]

            Let me cite some modern examples:
            http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blo

            Then there is also this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18703442

            And this: http://www.queerty.com/maine-homeless-group-loses

            It's nowhere near as severe as the sort of acts that islamic fundamentalists today commit, but the fact is that the intent to discriminate was there, particularly in the last report.

          • What do you mean Can you site the events or atrocities you are saying. Lately there were more atrocities done on Christians more than atheists. Remember the Coptic Christians in Egypt their churches bombed, the Christians in Pakistan put to death under the blasphemous law. A lot of Christians are dying for their faith. Jacob Bhatti a christian in Pakistan was killed by the Taliban because he defended the Christian minority from persecution. When asked why he did, he said "I want to earn my place at the foot of Jesus Christ." To live like Christ was all he wanted and he paid for it. I guess dying Christians is of little concern with atheists.

    • Reynor does have a point. How exactly are you able to surmise that humans have dignity and rights in a purely naturalistic reality? Unless ofcourse, your atheism is not predicated on naturalism. I would wonder though what it would be based on. All the rants against God I see on this website seem to be based on how humans have handled religion — emotional arguments.

      Humans are tribal by nature, and tend to justify things in terms of religion. That says nothing about the invalidity of religion and more on how ruling elites are often bad.

      New-atheists love bashing religion while subscribing to some of it's fundamental tenets –things like humans objectively have intrinsic value. No, be consistent with your worldview, we are all particles in motion, some of us just better organized than others. Whatever specialness you find in that is an opinion that nobody really ought to respect. As, I'm sure, some of you will have already known by now, you cannot derive an ought from an is.

      • [Humans are tribal by nature, and tend to justify things in terms of religion. That says nothing about the invalidity of religion and more on how ruling elites are often bad. ]

        Regardless of whether religion is real or not, the way people act on them is the focus hear. And it is the way that religion will impact people – whether positively or negatively – that I am more concerned about than the actual existence of said god.

        [things like humans objectively have intrinsic value. No, be consistent with your worldview, we are all particles in motion, some of us just better organized than others. Whatever specialness you find in that is an opinion that nobody really ought to respect. As, I'm sure, some of you will have already known by now, you cannot derive an ought from an is. ]

        I also understand that I am made of nothing more than carbon and water; that if you'd break us down to our base elements, we'd pretty much be a pencil and a heap load of water. But I do think that you are downplaying several other things, such as our ability to discern, to think, and to be able to carry out (relatively) comprehensible conversations as we are now. A pencil cannot do that, and neither can a chimpanzee, which is our closest living relative on a genetic level.

        I do not admit to being articulate on matters like this, but I do believe that this ability for complex thought is one thing that sets us apart from most other beings on this planet, and by connection, I will respect the sentience of my fellow human being regardless of their race, creed, or gender.

        I apologize if this is a rather simplistic and sentimental answer, but it is the best I can give at the moment.

        [New-atheists love bashing religion while subscribing to some of it's fundamental tenets –things like humans objectively have intrinsic value. ]

        Actually, I'm bashing Ordonez specifically because he resorted to the false argument that being an atheist automatically makes one less moral, somebody who deserves any less respect or rights than any human being. His argument was poorly founded, and I simply pointed it out in length.

        • [New-atheists love bashing religion while subscribing to some of it's fundamental tenets –things like humans objectively have intrinsic value. No, be consistent with your worldview, we are all particles in motion, some of us just better organized than others. ]

          Are you saying then saying that religion has a monopoly on the objective/intrinsic value of people?

          Just because other faiths postulate a god who allegedly creates value, it does not follow that they can conclude that value cannot exist without such a god. We give our own actions their value, and from what I've observed, atheism tends to give this intrinsic value regardless of other conditions that religions may use as a gauge of one's worth, such as their chosen faith, or sexual orientation.

          • [Are you saying then saying that religion has a monopoly on the objective/intrinsic value of people? ]

            — No. "Objective/intrinsic value" cannot exist on naturalism. Value cannot be objective with out a value giver. You say it is we who give value. Good luck with that. You are relying on subjective opinion to put value on something. I may give something more value than you would, and so forth. In so doing, no value is objective.

            [Just because other faiths postulate a god who allegedly creates value, it does not follow that they can conclude that value cannot exist without such a god.]

            — God doesn't create value. Value flows from Him. He is the standard if you will. Ofcourse you can create your own value if you want. You're welcome to it. But how can you say the value you give is objective? Because millions of people may disagree with you. Without a value giver who can give objective value, we will all rely on our own subjective opinions.

            [atheism tends to give this intrinsic value regardless of other conditions]

            — Lol! You mean they give their opinion. How on earth can they give something intrinsic value? This is impossible on naturalism.

            With respect, you don't know much about this subject I can tell.

          • [Twin-Skies wrote: "Just because other faiths postulate a god who allegedly creates value, it does not follow that they can conclude that value cannot exist without such a god."

            To which Miguel replied: "God doesn't create value. Value flows from Him. He is the standard if you will.]

            You mean the God you postulate?

            [Miguel wrote: "Of course you can create your own value if you want. You're welcome to it. But how can you say the value you give is objective? Because millions of people may disagree with you. Without a value giver who can give objective value, we will all rely on our own subjective opinions."]

            Of course any religion can create its own god if it wants. They're welcome to it. But how can they say that their god is the One True God? Because BILLIONS of people may disagree with them. Without irrefutable evidence on who is the One True God, religions will all rely on their own subjective opinions.

          • [You mean the God you postulate? ]

            — I can't postulate any God. God is by definition who He is. It isn't up to me to make up characteristics and ascribe them to Him. Let's just say, to make it easy, the maximally greatest being. If that's Allah, or Vishnu, or what have you, then that's Him. I however do subscribe to Christianity.

            [But how can they say that their god is the One True God? Because BILLIONS of people may disagree with them. ]

            — If Allah is the maximally greatest being, then Allah is God. Unless Vishnu was the maximally greatest being. Although, he wouldn't be if he, on occasion, needed some appeasement by way of virgin sacrifice, then he couldn't be. Because by definition, such an entity would not be the maximally greatest being.

            [Without irrefutable evidence on who is the One True God, religions will all rely on their own subjective opinions.]

            –Ahh.. "irrefutable evidence"? You're not asking for empirical evidence for the supernatural now are you? Coz that would be a contradiction.

            And why this sleight of hand? We were talking about morality, and how, on naturalism, morality was an illusion. If you want to debate the existence of God, then challenge me. But you don't inject something onto the discussion to avoid having to address what's already on the table.

          • //I can't postulate any God. God is by definition who He is. It isn't up to me to make up characteristics and ascribe them to Him. //

            You've already postulated that God is a He. And who gets to define God as well as the characteristics ascribed to him?

            //Let's just say, to make it easy, the maximally greatest being.//

            Maximally greatest being? Is a god who can create the universe, including life, in six days – or in billions of years if you're not a creationist – the maximally greatest being? How about a god who can create an entire universe, including life, in the blink of an eye or in no time at all – a universe where planets don't get sucked into black holes, where galaxies don't collide with other galaxies, where inhabited worlds don't have earthquakes and tsunamis, and where all creatures are capable of photosynthesis and of absorbing moisture and minerals from the air so they don't have to kill other sentient beings for food? While I don't think the kind of god I just described is the maximally greatest being, it certainly is greater than any of the gods the major religions claim to exist.

            //If that's Allah, or Vishnu, or what have you, then that's Him. I however do subscribe to Christianity.//

            Why do you particularly subscribe to Christianity? Don't you think if Allah is the One True God you will burn in Hell for blasphemously proclaiming that Jesus is God Incarnate and not just a human prophet?

            //Unless Vishnu was the maximally greatest being. Although, he wouldn't be if he, on occasion, needed some appeasement by way of virgin sacrifice, then he couldn't be. Because by definition, such an entity would not be the maximally greatest being. //

            Ah, but the Judeo-Christian god also needed some appeasement by way of "sacrifice" – by his own son, who was actually he himself – to himself, in order to satisfy his own craving for blood and so that man doesn't have to suffer his eternal wrath in the fires of Hell. Doesn't that undermine his "maximal greatest being" status?

            //Ahh.. "irrefutable evidence"? You're not asking for empirical evidence for the supernatural now are you? Coz that would be a contradiction.//

            Not necessarily empirical evidence for the supernatural per se, but repeatable observations on how the supernatural interacts with the natural world (e.g., if a religion claims that its god answers prayers, that can be verified through experiment – unless such religion says something weaselly like, "Of course God always answers prayers, it's just that his answer is sometimes No.")

            //And why this sleight of hand? We were talking about morality, and how, on naturalism, morality was an illusion. If you want to debate the existence of God, then challenge me. But you don't inject something onto the discussion to avoid having to address what's already on the table.//

            Sleight of hand? I was just commenting directly to what you actually said. Mind you, I never claimed that morality is not just an illusion – I'm still trying to figure that out. Unlike you, however, I'm not as quick to conclude that there must be a god in order for objective moral values to exist. Well, we can postulate that there must be a god, but I don't think we can conclude, at least not until some hard evidence surfaces.

          • [You've already postulated that God is a He.]

            — Ah, levity.

            [Maximally greatest being? Is a god who can create the universe, including life, in six days – or in billions of years if you're not a creationist – the maximally greatest being? How about a god who can create an entire universe, including life, in the blink of an eye or in no time at all – a universe where planets don't get sucked into black holes…..]

            — You've really only said a lot of things that amount to absolutely nothing in that it only describes how you think would be a better possible world. At least in the Christian world view, there are things that God prefers –for instance, to create a holy and moral people– and this is the best possible world for such. It would be futile to argue how an imaginary possible world would have been better considering that there is no way you can actually work all the variables out, and say with certainty that that alternate world would be better. So I 'll just have to overlook that particularly long diatribe for now.

            [Not necessarily empirical evidence for the supernatural per se, but repeatable observations on how the supernatural interacts with the natural world (e.g., if a religion claims that its god answers prayers, that can be verified through experiment – unless such religion says something weaselly like, "Of course God always answers prayers, it's just that his answer is sometimes No.") ]

            — There are, as you probably know, reasons for believing in God. I would list them here if you want. I think you already know about the cosmological argument, teleological and so forth. That builds a case for theism. To get from there to Christianity, the historicity of Jesus should be put in the mix. The mock about the prayer thing just gives you away, doesn't seem like you know your theology. You could at least try and learn some of it if you want to argue against it.

            [Sleight of hand? I was just commenting directly to what you actually said. Mind you, I never claimed that morality is not just an illusion – I'm still trying to figure that out.]

            — Try no further, because it is an illusion on naturalism.

            [Unlike you, however, I'm not as quick to conclude that there must be a god in order for objective moral values to exist.]

            — It's the only way for objective moral values to exist. I don't know of any other way. And absent that information, I am very much justified in concluding that without God, objective moral values do not exist.

            [Well, we can postulate that there must be a god, but I don't think we can conclude, at least not until some hard evidence surfaces.]

            — You bandy about this word rather often. What exactly kind of evidence would suffice for some proposition of this sort. It seems to me, this can only be figured out using logic and reasoning.

          • //You've really only said a lot of things that amount to absolutely nothing in that it only describes how you think would be a better possible world.//

            Christianity – and other religions for that matter – also say a lot of things that amount to absolutely nothing in that it only describes how they think would be a better possible world – a future world where we won't be needing bodies or where our bodies will have been resurrected and redesigned to last for eternity.

            //At least in the Christian world view, there are things that God prefers –for instance, to create a holy and moral people– and this is the best possible world for such.//

            In some other religion's world view, there are things that their gods prefer – for instance, to create a holy and moral people – but without having to kill the infidels and burn the witches at any point in their history – and this is certainly a better world.

            //It would be futile to argue how an imaginary possible world would have been better considering that there is no way you can actually work all the variables out, and say with certainty that that alternate world would be better.//

            Okay, you have a point there. Sorry, I thought by "maximally greatest being" we were trying to beat each other's imagination on who can conceive such a being.

            //There are, as you probably know, reasons for believing in God. I would list them here if you want. I think you already know about the cosmological argument, teleological and so forth. That builds a case for theism.//

            The cosmological and teleological arguments build a case for deism – not necessarily for theism – and by "build a case" I mean allows one to postulate, not conclude, that there must be a creator.

            //To get from there to Christianity, the historicity of Jesus should be put in the mix. //

            You have yet to make the leap from deism to theism, and from bare theism to Christianity. And unfortunately, the historicity of Jesus is yet to be proved, and so it cannot be used as proof for Christianity. (Historicity means historical authenticity; fact. Has the life of Jesus been historically authenticated to be called a fact?)

            //The mock about the prayer thing just gives you away, doesn't seem like you know your theology. You could at least try and learn some of it if you want to argue against it.//

            If it appears that I don't know much about theology, that's because there are so many versions of it, even within Christianity. It's not that I don't know much – it's just that I'm confused as to which version I'm dealing with right now.

            //Try no further, because it is an illusion on naturalism. It's the only way for objective moral values to exist.//

            Why? Because…

            //I don't know of any other way.//

            Ah, there you go. The God of the gaps.

            //And absent that information, I am very much justified in concluding that without God, objective moral values do not exist.//

            No. You are only justified in postulating – not concluding – that without God, objective moral values do not exist.

            //You bandy about this word rather often.//

            You mean 'postulate'? Yes, I like that word. It really should be used more often than 'conclude' when putting forth those sophisticated arguments for God's existence.

            //What exactly kind of evidence would suffice for some proposition of this sort. It seems to me, this can only be figured out using logic and reasoning.//

            How about God or Jesus showing himself? And before you say that it's contradictory to demand empirical evidence for the supernatural, let me point out that God has supposedly already shown himself to Abraham, and the resurrected Jesus to Thomas the Doubter. Why can't he show himself again today in front of billions of people? Which reminds me of a line from Jesus Christ Superstar: "Now why'd you choose such a backward time and such a strange land? If you'd come today you could have reached the whole nation. Israel in 4 BC had no mass communication."

          • [Christianity – and other religions for that matter – also say a lot of things that amount to absolutely nothing in that it only describes how they think would be a better possible world – a future world where we won't be needing bodies or where our bodies will have been resurrected and redesigned to last for eternity. ]

            — Echoing your opponent verbatim, aside from a few choice words, may seem witty at first. But when done too often, only shows someone as incapable of original thought.

            It's easy to tell which being would be greater when it comes to things as trivial as lifting weights — naturally, someone who could lift 10,000 pounds would be greater than one who couldn't and so forth. But using possible world semantics won't take us far here and will be tedious in that there are so many variables to consider. I will submit however, that given God's preferences, this is the best possible world.

            [In some other religion's world view, there are things that their gods prefer – for instance, to create a holy and moral people – but without having to kill the infidels and burn the witches at any point in their history – and this is certainly a better world. ]

            — No. It isn't clear to me that a world without free-will is a better possible world.

            [Okay, you have a point there. Sorry, I thought by "maximally greatest being" we were trying to beat each other's imagination on who can conceive such a being. ]

            –Insofar as our mind can grasp all the possible variables in the equation, yes. Like, it won't be too controversial to say that a being who could lift 10,000 pounds is greater than one who could lift only half as much.

            [The cosmological and teleological arguments build a case for deism – not necessarily for theism – and by "build a case" I mean allows one to postulate, not conclude, that there must be a creator. ]

            — I'll take that. Although, there are persuasive arguments that would say it makes a case for theism as well. But I can take deism, it makes no difference to me. And postulate -conclude, fine. We aren't actually breaking new ground by making such distinctions, so ok, whatever.

            [the historicity of Jesus is yet to be proved, and so it cannot be used as proof for Christianity. ]

            — We cannot prove anything that is irreducible to a mathematical certainty. But there is good evidence for the historicity of Jesus. Yes, it certainly can be part of the cumulative case for Christianity. Like I said, you cannot prove Christianity, and did a lengthy explanation of God's not wanting to coerce, below.

            (continued)

          • //Echoing your opponent verbatim, aside from a few choice words, may seem witty at first. But when done too often, only shows someone as incapable of original thought. //

            And how is this going to refute what I said about Christianity merely trying to envision a world where people can have eternal life? And doesn't Christianity itself also show that it's incapable of original thought? (Krishna, Mithra, Zoroaster/Zarathustra)

            //I will submit however, that given God's preferences, this is the best possible world.//

            You mean a world where those who make it to Paradise keep hearing the wails and the gnashing of teeth of their unsaved loved ones burning in hell throughout eternity?

            //No. It isn't clear to me that a world without free-will is a better possible world.//

            We're not talking about free will here. I'm referring to a god who commands his own people to kill the infidels and those who work on the Sabbath, not to mention non-virgin brides.

            //I'll take that. Although, there are persuasive arguments that would say it makes a case for theism as well. But I can take deism, it makes no difference to me. And postulate -conclude, fine. We aren't actually breaking new ground by making such distinctions, so ok, whatever.//

            Okay. At least we finally agree on something. 🙂 And when you said that deism and theism make no difference to you, are you actually saying that your brand of theistic god merely started the big bang and never intervened afterwards, including in the history of mankind?

            //We cannot prove anything that is irreducible to a mathematical certainty.//

            You are right. I'm sorry I used the P word.

            //But there is good evidence for the historicity of Jesus.//

            Is the evidence available for scrutiny today?

          • [You mean a world where those who make it to Paradise keep hearing the wails and the gnashing of teeth of their unsaved loved ones burning in hell throughout eternity? ]

            — Interpreting things rather literally aren't we. While we have the ability to reject God’s love and so separate ourselves from Him forever, that does not imply that there are no consequences of such a choice. In the context of eternity, those who freely choose to be away from God will find this a hellish experience. This isn't even hard to imagine, imagine being, say jealous, for all eternity. What you think is a normal human emotion, will be different when seen through the context of eternity.

            [We're not talking about free will here. I'm referring to a god who commands his own people to kill the infidels and those who work on the Sabbath, not to mention non-virgin brides. ]

            — Congratulations, you have one up against the rabbis. The old testament is only the story of God's people, whether they really believed it was God talking to them or they simply justified it in this way for convenience is irrelevant. Which is why Jesus repudiated a lot of the mosaic laws, and led a life that would seem contradictory, in a lot of ways, to people of the O.T. You will never get a complete picture if you read the O.T. out of context with the N.T.

            [And when you said that deism and theism make no difference to you, are you actually saying that your brand of theistic god merely started the big bang and never intervened afterwards, including in the history of mankind? ]

            — I'm not saying anything of that sort. I'm saying those particular arguments for the existence of God could lead you to deism. Some have made persuasive arguments that it could lead you to theism. It doesn't matter to me one way or the other, since my case includes the historicity of Jesus, which would definitely lead one to theism and Christianity.

            [Is the evidence available for scrutiny today?]

            — Yes, which we can discuss using logic and reasoning. But forget about ancient writings or artifacts and so forth. I don't have them. I've debated an atheist once who demanded I show him these things before he accepts the hypothesis of God raising Jesus from the dead. That, ofcourse, would be ridiculous.

          • //Congratulations, you have one up against the rabbis. The old testament is only the story of God's people, whether they really believed it was God talking to them or they simply justified it in this way for convenience is irrelevant. Which is why Jesus repudiated a lot of the mosaic laws, and led a life that would seem contradictory, in a lot of ways, to people of the O.T. You will never get a complete picture if you read the O.T. out of context with the N.T.//

            Ah, but Jesus also told us to slay before him those who would not allow that he be king.

          • [Ah, but Jesus also told us to slay before him those who would not allow that he be king.]

            — Please, buddy. I know you're smarter than that.

            Read Luke 19: 11-27 again. The one speaking was the king in the parable, not Jesus speaking for himself.

          • Oh! Thanks, Miguel. I honestly didn't notice that before. I was using a red-letter Bible and when I saw that verse 27 was in red I automatically assumed it was Jesus speaking instead of quoting someone else. I should have read the entire chapter instead of focusing on a single verse. Lesson learned. 🙂

          • [If it appears that I don't know much about theology, that's because there are so many versions of it, even within Christianity. It's not that I don't know much – it's just that I'm confused as to which version I'm dealing with right now. ]

            — There are so many versions of evolution as well, but the fundamentals I'll submit, are unchanged. That's why they don't rename the theory. Likewise, there may be many versions of Christianity, but the fundamentals are unchanged. If they are changed, like in Mormonism say, then we do not say that it's part of Christianity. So you don't have to be confused about anything, learn Christian theology, that's it. This would at least give you more credibility when you argue against it –which is not to say that you have no credibility.

            //Try no further, because it is an illusion on naturalism. It's the only way for objective moral values to exist.//

            [Why? Because…]

            — This is unnecessary frisking, but I might as well. Because it is impossible for objective moral values to exist on naturalism. And will necessarily exist on theism. If you still have to ask why, then you really ought to study naturalism and theism further.

            //I don't know of any other way.//

            [Ah, there you go. The God of the gaps. ]

            — Lol! No, this isn't a gap. It isn't a hole in our knowledge that needs to be plugged. It isn't controversial that on naturalism there can exist no objective moral code because there are logical contradictions. Nice how you say that as if it made sense though. If I said God must exist because I don't know the physics that would produce thunder and lightning, then you're very much justified in making the 'God of the Gaps' charge. But this is like you arguing that married bachelors can exist, and my reluctance to accept it is based on ignorance (or gap in understanding) of the process by which a married bachelor could be produced.

            [No. You are only justified in postulating – not concluding – that without God, objective moral values do not exist. ]

            — No, conclude. You can dispute whether my evidence is adequate, but to pre-suppose that it is inadequate without first giving an argument on why you think such is, well, stupid.

            [How about God or Jesus showing himself? And before you say that it's contradictory to demand empirical evidence for the supernatural, let me point out that God has supposedly already shown himself to Abraham, and the resurrected Jesus to Thomas the Doubter. Why can't he show himself again today in front of billions of people?]

            — I answered this below.

            ["Now why'd you choose such a backward time and such a strange land? If you'd come today you could have reached the whole nation. Israel in 4 BC had no mass communication."]

            — My answer below covers this as well. And it's disputable that it was a "backward time and strange land", because you already must know, there was an explosion in the population right after that period.

            You might say "well now we have T.V. and the internet!" Which I think is what you're saying. But again, my answer below covers this. God does not give coercive evidence, because if He did, everyone would act differently.

          • //There are so many versions of evolution as well, but the fundamentals I'll submit, are unchanged. That's why they don't rename the theory. Likewise, there may be many versions of Christianity, but the fundamentals are unchanged.//

            Okay then. Since we were talking about prayer, what then is the fundamental belief of Christians with regards to intercessory prayer? Do Christians claim that God answers prayers or not?

            //Because it is impossible for objective moral values to exist on naturalism. And will necessarily exist on theism. If you still have to ask why, then you really ought to study naturalism and theism further.//

            I would really like to invite you to the FF Forum <a href="http://(https://filipinofreethinkers.org/forum)” target=”_blank”>(https://filipinofreethinkers.org/forum) to discuss objective moral values. I've said before that I'm still trying to figure it out, and I would really appreciate if you can enlighten me. 🙂

            //Lol! No, this isn't a gap. It isn't a hole in our knowledge that needs to be plugged. It isn't controversial that on naturalism there can exist no objective moral code because there are logical contradictions. Nice how you say that as if it made sense though. If I said God must exist because I don't know the physics that would produce thunder and lightning, then you're very much justified in making the 'God of the Gaps' charge.//

            What I'm actually confused with is the term "objective moral values", and that's why I said I'm still trying to figure it out. If you define 'value' as the rightness or goodness of a certain act, then I believe that objective moral values do exist (and to say that they can't exist without God is tantamount to saying that objective reality cannot exist without God). However, if you define 'value' as something that compels people to act based on what is right instead of what is wrong, then I don't think objective moral values exist.

            //But this is like you arguing that married bachelors can exist, and my reluctance to accept it is based on ignorance (or gap in understanding) of the process by which a married bachelor could be produced.//

            "Married bachelor" is clearly an oxymoron because by using the term 'bachelor' one already assumes that he is unmarried. However, It's not the same when you say "godless objective morality" because nowhere in the definition of 'objective' is God a necessary requirement.

            //No, conclude. You can dispute whether my evidence is adequate, but to pre-suppose that it is inadequate without first giving an argument on why you think such is, well, stupid.//

            Okay. Let's discuss this in the forum then. https://filipinofreethinkers.org/forum

            //My answer below covers this as well. And it's disputable that it was a "backward time and strange land", because you already must know, there was an explosion in the population right after that period.//

            If you watched Jesus Christ Superstar, which was released in 1973, Judas was the one who sang those lines – after he killed himself and somehow came back to life wearing "modern" (1970's) clothes and singing with a microphone on a stage illuminated with electric lights. And if I understand Tim Rice correctly, I think he means that if Jesus wanted the world to know about his Good News, he should have come at a time where mass communication was already available instead of relying on fishermen to spread his tales through word of mouth.

          • Sure, we can discuss objective moral values at the forum. Just tell me exactly where in the forum should I go to, since it seems there are numerous areas of interest.

            Why do I have a feeling that you will be arguing Sam Harris' book 'the moral landscape'? Let me tell you though, I already read that book. And quite frankly, it sucked. The guy is a pinhead, insofar as his philosophy goes.

          • Just to get this out of my laundry list.

            [Ah, but the Judeo-Christian god also needed some appeasement by way of "sacrifice" – by his own son, who was actually he himself – to himself, in order to satisfy his own craving for blood and so that man doesn't have to suffer his eternal wrath in the fires of Hell. Doesn't that undermine his "maximal greatest being" status? ]

            — Anything will sound ridiculous when over-simplified in such a manner. For instance evolution, which I think it's safe to say is an idea we both subscribe to, can sound like this: There was this big explosion caused by nothing that turned into worm-like thingies, then became monkeys that turned into humans. See?

            [Doesn't that undermine his "maximal greatest being" status? ]

            — No because a God who loves his creation is most likely greater than a hypothetical God who doesn't.

            [Why do you particularly subscribe to Christianity? Don't you think if Allah is the One True God you will burn in Hell for blasphemously proclaiming that Jesus is God Incarnate and not just a human prophet? ]

            — Again, you have such a Sunday school understanding of Christianity. There is a more sophisticated version on offer that I think you scarcely understand.

            Those who never heard of Christ, because of circumstance, luck or timing, could still obtain salvation by using their free will to always do what was good and right. Their eternal destiny, therefore, is not based on circumstance or luck, but on their own volition.

            This is God showing them justice.

            God however is also merciful. And this mercy is obtained by accepting the sacrifice of Jesus. Mercy, by definition, is never deserved. Mercy, by definition, is not fair; it always entails giving someone more than what they deserve by way of reward, or less than what they deserve by way of punishment. Therefore, it doesn't really matter if all have the same opportunity to acquire it.

            So I would rather be judged mercifully than justly.

          • //Anything will sound ridiculous when over-simplified in such a manner. For instance evolution, which I think it's safe to say is an idea we both subscribe to, can sound like this: There was this big explosion caused by nothing that turned into worm-like thingies, then became monkeys that turned into humans. See?//

            Have I really over-simplified the gospel of Jesus' sacrifice and man's salvation to the point of ridicule the same way you have over-simplified evolution?

            //No because a God who loves his creation is most likely greater than a hypothetical God who doesn't. //

            Does a god who will burn those who don't believe in his Son love his creation?

            //Again, you have such a Sunday school understanding of Christianity. There is a more sophisticated version on offer that I think you scarcely understand.//

            Okay, but what is it that allows you to say that your sophisticated version is the truth while my Sunday school understanding is not?

            //Those who never heard of Christ, because of circumstance, luck or timing, could still obtain salvation by using their free will to always do what was good and right. Their eternal destiny, therefore, is not based on circumstance or luck, but on their own volition.//

            If I can't force myself to believe that Jesus is God incarnate because every part of my supposedly God-given reason screams incredulity, is that due to my own volition? Does that make me commit the unforgivable sin of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit?

          • [Have I really over-simplified the gospel of Jesus' sacrifice and man's salvation to the point of ridicule the same way you have over-simplified evolution? ]

            — Yup. Substitutionary atonement is really a subject that I cannot do justice in such a limiting platform. If you're really interested to know the arguments, the best book on this as far as I've been able to gather, is 'The Cross of Christ by John Stott'.

            [Does a god who will burn those who don't believe in his Son love his creation? ]

            — Probably not. Luckily this is a caricature of the Christian God, and not the actual one. But a God who respects your free-will to be free from him even after death, is certainly a loving one.

            [Okay, but what is it that allows you to say that your sophisticated version is the truth while my Sunday school understanding is not? ]

            — Because my "sophisticated" version has at least been reached through tedious studying of the matter. You're Sunday school version is what they teach kids who would not be able to grasp deep theology. It's interesting that most atheists become atheist at about 12. Which is why their arguments are against the kind of theology they've been exposed to –one they've heard during Sunday school.

            [f I can't force myself to believe that Jesus is God incarnate because every part of my supposedly God-given reason screams incredulity, is that due to my own volition? Does that make me commit the unforgivable sin of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit?]

            — Yes it is due to your own volition. God does not give evidence that would coerce a relationship with Him. "Seek and you shall find" means that you must first "seek". If you do not open your heart to him, then you have enough evidence for yourself to reject Him. But he gives at the same time, enough evidence that would make the believer rational in his belief.

            If you were Zuckerberg and, say, you wanted to find true love. Assuming you aren't already as well-known as he is, then you would do good to hide the fact that you own facebook. Because women will be somewhat compelled to be your true love on account of that fact. Ofcourse this is an analogy that's lacking, but you get the point; God doesn't coerce us into a relationship with him. That's essentially what would happen if He appeared to you in the night and told you He existed. This kind of relationship would be something some people will resent.

          • //Yup. Substitutionary atonement is really a subject that I cannot do justice in such a limiting platform. If you're really interested to know the arguments, the best book on this as far as I've been able to gather, is 'The Cross of Christ by John Stott'. //

            I invite you then to the FF Forum <a href="http://(https://filipinofreethinkers.org/forum)” target=”_blank”>(https://filipinofreethinkers.org/forum). It's easier to discuss lengthy topics there and to closely follow the threads and to block-quote from the others' posts. Besides, I would really like to discuss objective moral values with you. 🙂

            //Probably not. Luckily this is a caricature of the Christian God, and not the actual one.//

            So you're saying that the actual God will not burn those who don't believe in his Son?

            //But a God who respects your free-will to be free from him even after death, is certainly a loving one.//

            If an earthly father will say to his son, "I respect your free will to be free from my house rules, but I will shoot and kill you if you disobey me," is that a loving father?

            //Because my "sophisticated" version has at least been reached through tedious studying of the matter.//

            That only makes it more thought of. It does not necessarily make it true.

            //Yes it is due to your own volition.//

            'Believe' means "to accept as true." Are you saying that 'belief' is a matter of choice instead of something one arrives at through knowledge and understanding? I don't think belief is due to our own volition. If a non-Christian threatens to torture you and your family (sorry for that but I need to make my point) in the most painful way unless you profess to believe in his god, does that mean you can actually make yourself believe? No. The most you can do is to dishonestly PROFESS to believe in his god without actually believing in what you profess.

            //God doesn't coerce us into a relationship with him. That's essentially what would happen if He appeared to you in the night and told you He existed. This kind of relationship would be something some people will resent.//

            So God doesn't coerce us into a relationship with him; he only burns us in hell if we don't enter into such relationship for lack of belief. Is that correct?

          • Again, I can respond to all of this by simply saying that you are arguing against a caricatured version of Christianity. And the hell thing, isn't literally a place where there is fire and so forth.

            If you read my other previous response, you'll find that I said, your eternal destiny was based on your own volition. So whether ot not you believed in God, He will give you Justice.

            Its just that, we have this opportunity for mercy, through Christ. I've already explained this at a previous response. Let's not do unnecessary frisking, since it makes the whole thing tedious.

          • //The forum thing looks like a good idea, as apparently, comments here have to be limited in length.//

            Aside from that, it's rather hard to follow long threads here. Let me welcome you to the forum so we can continue our discussions there and avoid flooding this blog with our comments which seem to have digressed from the article. You seem to be a decent guy, Miguel, and I think I can learn something from you – actually I already did when you posted that comment about how it's fallacious to say that Christians are atheists with regards to Allah and to every other god. 🙂

      • [New-atheists love bashing religion while subscribing to some of it's fundamental tenets –things like humans objectively have intrinsic value. No, be consistent with your worldview, we are all particles in motion, some of us just better organized than others. ]

        Partly true, based on my observations. While the new atheists you have posted do impose an intrinsic value on human beings, I think you are wrong to consider this as anything similar to the religions they attack.

        These religions – specifically their fundamentalists – have a tendency to emphasize their ideology's dogma and related symbolisms over that of the well-being of its people. For example, invoking an excommunication on a medical team whose crime was to performing an emergency abortion on a 9-year-old child.

        Then there is the case of Taheer, who was gunned specifically because he was secular who was vocally opposed to Islam.

        New atheists in general will place this inherent value on the person themselves, and not on said dogma. At least that has been my observation ever since I've started reading into said matters.

        • Yes they place intrinsic value on humans as they should. But in doing so they are being inconsistent with their worldview. And you've just cited a bunch of nutjobs who are fundamentalists. We all know fundamentalism is a problem, I won't argue with you there.

          Let's not fall into this rut of getting the worst parts of religion to represent the whole. This is very common it seems. New atheists argue against a crayon understanding of religion, when there's a sophisticated version on offer. Which when faced with, catches them completely off guard, and reduces them to parroting long outdated arguments of Russel and Hume. One notices how a lot of atheists are scientifically literate, but philosophically bankrupt.

          [New atheists in general will place this inherent value on the person themselves]

          — Yes they would. Without knowing where this "inherent value" comes from. Like I said, if they were to be consistent with their worldview, then whatever "inherent value" they may want to place on anything is reducible to opinion.

          • "New atheists argue against a crayon understanding of religion, when there's a sophisticated version on offer"

            AKA the courtier's reply. Walang kwenta ang argumentong ganyan kung kayo lang ni Terry Eagleton ang magkakaintindihan. Look at what people ACTUALLY believe and you'll find out that it's crayons all the way.

          • Ofcourse we cannot expect most to have the time to adopt the sophisticated version. But there's a nutty version, theres a simple version and there's the sophisticated one.

            Nutty versions are the one's abortion clinic bombers subscribe to. Simple versions are what most subscribe to, they are good and harmless, the simplicity of which makes them unable to defend against sophisticated arguments that have been popularized by Dawkins types. Then there's the sophisticated version that is completely defensible.

            I hope this answered you.

  7. There's nothing wrong with disintegration of traditional families. I think what is more important is the functional value of each individual and the synergistic product of the "family" as an organization. If the individuals are better off as individuals, so be it. If they are better individuals with their interdependence family set-up, then that's also fine. Practical valuation should be the main consideration over keeping the families together.
    "Why are families very important?" is another question/topic to delve on…

  8. Re: teen prostitution, we have a recent local case of child molestation: http://j.mp/ah5Czc

    The church is already closing rank on the priest instead of letting the police investigate the matter before making any pronouncement of their clergy's innocence.

    Great job on this piece Twin, my take on Ordonez' crap article would have been more angry ranting instead of cold deadly facts that totally eviscerate his case!

  9. If A Religion (ex. Catholics) Does't Believe the Other Religion is true (ex. Muslims), doesn't that make all other Religions "worshiping" a false god or non-existent God and thus these people are technically Godless?

    • "We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." – Richard Dawkins

      • Richard Dawkins is a smart guy. But this is evidence that smart people can say stupid things. You can't say you are an "atheist" about another God. My being a Christian does not make me a Muslim atheist. An atheist is someone who believes zero Gods exist. It's not even a good way of playing with words to make a point. That's like saying "I believe God doesn't exist, except the Christian one" — way to be self-contradictory and ridiculous.

        • It depends on the Catholics you talk to. While some will tell you that they don't believe Allah is a real God, others will tell you that Allah is actually another culture's interpretation of the same God, albeit a wrong way of worship.

          • That's actually not what I'm saying. You can very well talk to a catholic who believes Allah is not the real God. But it would be erroneous to say that he is a Muslim atheist. You're either an atheist or not. You cannot be an atheist with respect to Allah but not a theist with respect to another God –that would mean you are an atheist and a theist at the same time. It is wrongful use of the word, simple as that.

Leave a reply

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here